Civil wars have become an increasingly prevalent form of violent conflict. Scholars and practitioners have devoted more attention to improving the methods used to transform these conflicts nonviolently, particularly how to approach civil war mediation. The various academic and practitioner communities working to improve these methods, however, often differ in their beliefs about and approaches to helping violent parties end civil war. The academic community, for example, examines civil war peace processes from a variety of perspectives, hoping to address the problem though the accumulation of knowledge and actionable research. However, as this article demonstrates, the research conducted by the academic community often falls short of adequately informing policy and practice. To address this problem, the authors of this article offer observations and recommendations to help bridge the important “theory-to-practice divide.”

The authors begin by providing a
review of the academic research on civil war peace processes to try to
understand how scholars have approached the topic thus far. They then turn to
the potential relevance of civil war research, asking what type of academic
knowledge is most desired by mediation policy-makers and practitioners. The
authors conclude with a discussion on how scholarship on civil war mediation is
generally perceived by practitioners and offer recommendations to the academic
community on how to improve the “usefulness” of their research.

A review of the academic research
on civil war peace processes reveals that scholars typically tend to focus
their work on individual aspects and/or phases of the process. First, research
regarding the efforts behind getting various parties to the negotiating table
has found that mediators are usually necessary for effective negotiations due
to the asymmetric power dynamics between the conflicting parties that often
prevent them from trusting the other enough to begin negotiations. Thus, civil
wars often necessitate an outside third-party to help address the conflict and
its underlying grievances. From here, research has revealed that territorial,
internationalized, and longer-lasting wars are more likely to experience
mediation and that more intense wars are more likely to attract the attention
of potential mediators, though these mediators are less effective when they
arrive late to the conflict after “harder lines are drawn” by the conflict
parties. Other prominent findings in civil war research include the importance
of conflict “ripeness” in the timing of mediation initiatives; crafting peace
agreements with “the understanding that the document itself is not only
supposed to stop the violence, but also address underlying grievances to better
avoid conflict recurrence”; and creating a “postsettlement environment” after
an agreement is signed that assists with the normalization of intergroup
relations and addresses lingering grievances and commitment problems between
conflict parties.

Turning to an analysis of the type
of academic research most desired by mediation policy-makers and practitioners,
the authors survey the many factors contributing to the communication gap
between research and policy or practice. The field’s research findings often
include policy recommendations, but for various reasons the authors address,
the recommendations rarely translate into changed practice or policy. Some of
the obstacles to effective communication between the academic community and
policy-makers or practitioners include the following: a mis-match between the
research needs of policy-makers and practitioners and the research conducted by
scholars; the mediation community’s perception of academic research; the focus,
practicality, and accessibility of the research; and difficulties associated
with the existing ways research can be acquired. The authors find that
practitioners are least receptive to large statistical studies that have become
increasingly common in civil war mediation research. This is largely because
practitioners “view every conflict as distinct, dynamic, and complex,” and
studies employing large-scale statistical methodologies often over-generalize
approaches to peacebuilding and ignore many practitioners’ “preference for
responsiveness and flexibility.” This “flexibility” may be why practitioners
prefer research that offers comparative knowledge and more limited
generalizations that appreciate that every conflict is different, with unique
elements particular to each conflict environment; they place little trust in
generalizations based on collective data that ignore the unique challenges and
specific elements of each civil war. Practitioners and policy-makers are also
interested in context-specific knowledge, especially while working in the field
on a specific conflict where information about the conflict history, dynamics,
causes, parties, goals, issues in dispute, and so on is most valuable and
actionable. Also of value is comparative research like case studies where
mediators can draw on the insights, variations, and examples of others’
experiences, as well as the mediator-produced (or heavily influenced) “best
practices” research that provides overviews on key steps like “establishing a
mediation team, designing a mediation process, preparing an agenda for talks,
getting the parties to the table, facilitating dialogue and negotiations,
dealing with spoilers…” and so on.

The authors conclude with
recommendations for academics on how best to focus their research on material
that is most needed by those working in the field. On the top of the list is
the need for more context-specific knowledge such as case studies or
comparative studies that provide direct insight into real-world conflicts. Also
important is the need for research that examines civil war peace processes
beyond just the end of violence or the signing of a peace
agreement—practitioners want to know more about what happens once the fighting
stops, how relationships between parties evolve over time, and how best to approach
“repeated resolution attempts” if the violence begins again in the future.
Finally, the authors point to the ongoing failure of academics to adequately
explain the complex data, statistical analyses, and findings of their research:
“if we are aiming to better inform practice, then we need to write in a way
that is accessible to those without quantitative backgrounds or interests…doing
so will take what often seems abstract to the concrete and, therefore, become
more informative.”

Contemporary Relevance:

Evidence supporting the
communication gap between academics and practitioners is far from subtle.
Practitioners often comment on the lack of relevant research that can inform
the needs of organizations, while academics might not get the full access to the
field they need to collect good data. Additionally, academics and practitioners
tend to use different channels of information sharing and gathering. The
journal articles published in traditional academic journals are not regularly
consulted by practitioners, and articles written by practitioners or policy
experts are infrequently read by academics. As a result, academics have a
limited knowledge of topics, concerns and approaches relevant to those in the
field and practitioners are unaware of the expertise available in our
universities and how their own work might benefit future research. Access to
academic research is commonly restricted to institutional affiliation or
expensive individual subscriptions. Journal subscriptions are typically more
than $150 a year, or around $30 for a single article. Even if someone outside
the academic community could avoid these obstacles, most literature offers
little to no practical relevance or paths to implementation apart from the
possibility of a few lines in the conclusion. Additionally, studies have shown
that on average, academic peer-reviewed papers are read by no more than ten
people, other studies found more than 50% of academic papers are read by no
more than three people—assuring an almost negligent impact on a practitioner
community.

There are, however, ways in which
these communities can overcome these communication “road blocks”, including a
better use of technology (using apps and other internet-based programs to
increase the ease of communication without institutional roadblocks found in
many organizational/university/publishing norms); hosting events where
academics and practitioners interact to share their perspective to increase
awareness and determine pathways toward collaboration; better integrate the experience
and points of view of practitioners into graduate education (inviting them as
faculty, guest lecturers, or a greater emphasis on case studies in classrooms);
incorporate practicum components into universities that encourage students to
work outside of the classroom to gain practical experience and perspective; and
the creation of task forces that combine the expertise of academics and
practitioners in a way that cuts through the above “road blocks” to provide
direct accesses and communication between both communities.

Talking Points:

Practitioners want more context-specific
research from academics, such as case studies or comparative studies, that
provide direct insight into real-world conflicts.

Academics must provide research on events
following peace agreements—practitioners want to know more about what happens
once the fighting stops, how relationships evolve over time, and how best to
approach “repeated resolution attempts” if the violence recurs.

Academics must improve the translation and
explanation of their research (complex data, statistical analyses, etc.) into
more accessible findings for those outside of the academic community.

Practical Implications:

There are many benefits to
improving communication and cooperation between academics and practitioners,
especially in the field of peace research. The relationship improves the
response and methods used when facing new and existing challenges, as it
provides practitioners with theoretical knowledge upon which to base their
programs and academics with practical insights and needs to improve and better
focus their research. By bridging the gap between the two communities’ distinct
and valuable bodies of knowledge, academics and practitioners are poised to
collaborate on more effective projects to address the field’s pressing issues.
If, however, there is a disconnect between these two communities, the vital
dialectical relationship between academic and practitioner begins to
dissolve—leading to less relevant and informed research as well as slow or
negligible advances in the field.

As the authors point out in their
conclusion, one reason as to why communication between these two communities
suffers is because, commonly, academic literature is difficult to read,
understand, and access. Articles are often filled with technical jargon or
complicated statistical formulas, and access to most academic literature is
restricted to those with institutional affiliations or expensive individual
subscriptions. Even if someone outside the academic community might find a way
to avoid these obstacles, most research offers little to no practical relevance
or paths to implementation. Furthermore, the consequences of this communication
gap expand far beyond mere underachieved theoretical and practical advancement.
Rather, the greatest consequence relates to the goals of the field itself:
bringing about a more just and peaceful society. Ultimately, meaningful
communication and collaboration between theory and practice must be maintained
in order to remain honest to the field’s ambitions.

Peace
researchers must become more active in building a bridge between the academic
and practitioner communities by producing policy-relevant, actionable insight
for policy-makers, as well as by facilitating contextual and practical dialogue
between themselves and the field’s practitioners. Likewise, academics from the field of Peace and
Conflict Studies can provide theoretical context on issues of war and peace,
opening up conceptual space for the broader public to question common-sense
thinking about violence and to explore its alternatives.

Popular Posts

01

02

03

Social

Testimonials

Erica Chenoweth, Ph.D.

The field of peace science has long suffered from a needless disconnect between current scholarship and relevant practice. The Peace Science Digest serves as a vital bridge. By regularly communicating cutting-edge peace research to a general audience, this publication promises to advance contemporary practice of peace and nonviolent action. I don’t know of any other outlet that has developed such an efficient forum for distilling the key insights from the latest scholarly innovations for anyone who wants to know more about this crucial subject. I won’t miss an issue.

-Erica Chenoweth: Professor, Associate Dean for Research at the Josef Korbel School of International Studies at the University of Denver

David Cortright, Ph.D.

The Peace Science Digest is a valuable tool for translating scholarly research into practical conclusions in support of evidence-based approaches to preventing armed conflict.

-David Cortright: Director of Policy Studies at the Kroc Institute of International Peace Studies at the University of Notre Dame

Ambassador John W. McDonald, ret.

This Magazine is where the academic field and the practitioners meet. It is the ideal source for the Talkers, the Writers and the Doers who need to inform and educate themselves about the fast growing field of Peace Science for War Prevention Initiatives!

Kelly Cambell

As a longtime peace activist, I’ve grown weary of the mainstream perception that peace is for dreamers. That’s why the Peace Science Digest is such as useful tool; it gives me easy access to the data and the science to make the case for peacebuilding and war prevention as both practical and possible. This is a wonderful new resource for all who seek peaceful solutions in the real world.

Michael Nagler

We must welcome the expansion of peace awareness into any and every area of our lives, in most of which it must supplant the domination of war and violence long established there. The long-overdue and much appreciated Digest is filling an important niche in that peace invasion. No longer will anyone be able to deny that peace is a science that can be studied and practiced.

-Michael Nagler: Founder and President, Metta Center for Nonviolence

Aubrey Fox

The Peace Science Digest is the right approach to an ever-present challenge: how do you get cutting-edge peace research that is often hidden in hard-to-access academic journals into the hands of a broader audience? With its attractive on-line format, easy to digest graphics and useful short summaries, the Peace Science Digest is a critically important tool for anyone who cares about peace as well as a delight to read.

Joseph Bock, Ph.D.

How many times are we asked about the effectiveness of alternatives to violent conflict? Reading Peace Science Digest offers a quick read on some of the best research focused on that important question. It offers talking points and summarizes practical implications. Readers are provided with clear, accessible explanations of theories and key concepts. It is a valuable resource for policy-makers, activists and scholars. It is a major step in filling the gap between research findings and application.

-Joseph Bock: International Conflict Management Program Associate Professor of International Conflict Management, Kennesaw State University

Eric Stoner

The distillation of the latest academic studies offered by the Peace Science Digest is not only an invaluable time-saving resource for scholars and policymakers concerned with preventing the next war, but for journalists and organizers on the front lines, who can put their findings to good use as they struggle to hold the powerful accountable and to build a more just and peaceful world.

-Eric Stoner: Co-founder and Editor, Waging Nonviolence

Mark Freeman

The Peace Science Digest is a major contribution to the peace and security field. It makes complex issues more understandable, enabling professional outfits like ours to be more effective in our global work. The Digest underscores that preventing war is about more than good intentions or power; it is also about transferable knowledge and science.

Maria J. Stephan, Ph.D.

The Digest is smartly organized, engaging, and provides a nice synthesis of key research on conflict, war, and peace with practical and policy relevance. The journal’s emphasis on “contemporary relevance”, “talking points” and “practical implications” is a breath of fresh air for those of us trying to bridge the academic-policy-practitioner divides. Highly recommended reading.

-Maria J. Stephan: Senior Advisor, United States Institute of Peace

David Swanson

Peace Science Digest is an invaluable tool for advocates for peace, as much as for educators. In it one quickly finds the talking points needed to persuade others, and the research to back those points up.